Who said the following?
I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.
That would of course be current Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. Was she right?
I have to say, I’ve watched more footage, and although I wouldn’t call those mobs at the town halls, they were rude, shouting, and chanting.
Unfortunately, the Dems have pushed it the wrong way, with Union beatdowns, selective guests, and misinformation and ridicule from the top of the government (president and pilosi). Those were losing moves.
But I am glad that, as some polls now show, that Independents are breaking Republican because of this administrations missteps, as well as the information (or ‘misinformation’ if you think left) that the talk shows and such are getting out. The more we learn about these bills and plans, the more most people realize that spending ourselves into oblivion is not a plan.
Of course she is right but I don't think outright lying and corporate sponsored mob rule is what she had in mind when she said "debate and disagree." Don't you think that republicans are behaving despicably with their tactics? Louis compared them to brown shirts. I have to admit that he has a point. Republicans are very good at using fake outrage, misinformation, and fear to sway the weak minded or the weak willed. That's their M.O.
outright lying and corporate sponsored mob
Facts please? Unsubstantiated claims are easy to make or repeat from biased sources. Can you please detail what are outright lies and demonstrate how corporations are sponsoring "mobs?" Also, how would someone qualify as a mob? Were you also calling anti-war protesters shouting down Republicans "mobs?"
It is very regrettable when people resort to name calling and shouting in political debates. Any example of it that you show me I will condemn.
I do have a question on that though, do you not think it is over the line to suggest that those who disagree with you do not care about uninsured people and are only concerned about money? How is that beneficial to the debate and maintaining a civil tone?
As an aside: For some reason, I'm on the Focus on the Family PAC's mailing list. They sent out an email today with the title: "Keeping the higher ground on the health care debate." It encouraged those who attend the town hall meetings "to be polite and respectful each and every time you communicate with your elected officials. Let's show respect to everyone as our country debates this very important issue."
It's easy to tar entire groups of people or political ideas by the actions of a few, but if that was the case then the right could do the very same with the left. The tactic gets us nowhere.
"Facts please?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl91YF1d3Kg
also…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32292235
I'm sorry that after your little rant about unsubstantiated claims that this makes you look bad, but you really deserved it.
Crap, I accidentally clinked on one of my boys' bookmark tabs. I lost my whole comment to SuperWhy from PBS kids!! LOL. I try to type it back out.
Both those videos are from Maddow, a biased source. That’s fine, but it should be acknowledged from the start. I could just as easily post videos from conservative talking heads. That doesn’t prove any thing for either of us. But I did watch your videos and I’ll go through them.
The YouTube video used one website that supported the protests, pulled names from the “national coalition” at the bottom and insinuated that the protesters could not be genuine “middle class Americans” because national conservative organizations with connections to politicians were supporting them. Is that really shocking?
Is it just as shocking to see the heads of NARAL, ACORN, CodePink, MoveOn, etc. also have similar connections to liberal politicians and also work to organize and promote protests?
If you go by Maddow’s definition then no protest could be truly spontaneous. Did she do the same extensive research to out the anti-war rallies as being ran by the far left and lobbying groups, while being funded by billionaires?
The MSNBC video was even stranger. Almost the entire video was spent re-arguing FL 2000. The only demonstrable proof given was one photo from the FL recount which included about a dozen people connected to Republican politicians. With that she ruled the entire protests were paid for by the GOP along with, 9 years later, the health care protests.
You do realize that Democrats and liberals often bus in protesters, right? You do realize that liberal lobbying groups pay for protesters, right? It’s not much of a secret that both sides do this.
It is funny to see Maddow use language so similar to the talking points that Gibbs uses in his press briefings. Remind me, didn’t conservative commentators get flak for doing that?
Also (to use her tone), she said “astroturfing.” Now, where have I heard that before … seems like it is someone who is connected to Pres. Obama. Oh, that’s right David Axelrod, his chief political adviser, runs a side business that seeks to influence public opinion in favor of their corporate clients, who are secretly hidden by the group. One client did speak out in praise of Axelrod’s efforts by calling him, “the gold standard in astroturf organizing.”
Oh and when did this little astroturf mantra take off? It was after Think Progress posted a top secret “leaked memo” that was supposedly connected to all sorts of high Republicans and conservatives.
First lets do some Maddow work on TP. They were founded as the media arm of the Center for American Progress, a leftwing advocacy group. Who is the President, CEO of CAP? Well it’s John Podesta, former lobbyist, Pres. Clinton chief of staff and co-chairman of Pres. Obama’s transition team.
Who funds CAP? Oh you know just your average middle class Americans like multi-billionaire George Soros, billionaire Peter Lewis, multi-millionaire Steve Bing, and the disgraced multi-billionaire couple at the heart of the housing fiasco Herbert and Marion Sandler.
CAP has been home to numerous high ranking Democratic officials who worked for the Clinton Administration and now work for the Obama administration.
They refuse to release their specific donor information (including more individuals and dozens of corporations), even though the group has had untold influence within the Obama administration. Both NY Times and Politico have done stories on their lack of transparency. There’s also the little fact that they have a “separate” lobbying organization headed by all the same people.
So now that I have Maddowed Think Progress and shown all the shadowy connections that PROVE whatever else I may claim after this, I’ll get to the actual story that started the meme.
The leaked memo, which they connect to Americans for Prosperity and elected Republicans (through some one word quotes pulled out of context), is also spiced up with some added headings.
The guy who wrote the memo heads a sketchy conservative group called Right Principles PAC. It was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, but oh how it has grown. Today, Bob’s group takes in a whopping $5,017 and has paid out an extraordinary $1,777. They are obviously high rolling GOP operatives, well except for the fact that Bob says he has never voted for a Republican (or a Democrat) for national office.
They call him a “volunteer” with the larger FreedomWorks group, but he actually has no connection with the group whatsoever. The one link they provide goes to a blog post he wrote on the free social networking site connected to Tea Party Patriots, which TP calls a FreedomWorks site. It’s not. They do share similar goals (as most liberal organizations do), but there is no financial or formal connections at all and never has been.
The “leaked memo” was emailed to 7-10 fellow CT activist in June by Bob. If you actually want to see the dastardly result of Bob’s nefarious schemes, you can watch the video of him and his mob at Weekly Standard, which also gives all the info about the memo I detailed above, and more.
The TP false meme was picked up by NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS and CNN and obviously Maddow, who did some additional digging of her own (at least she didn’t just slap up the work of lefty blogs like Olbermann does).
I’m sorry that after your little rant about unsubstantiated claims that this makes you look bad, but you really deserved it.
You’re not sorry, Cin. You enjoyed posting those videos to attempt to dispute me. ;)
But I don’t think they make me look bad. They show Maddow giving her take on the liberal talking points about the protests. It’s nothing I hadn’t seen already, except the extensive amount of time she spent on FL 2000. But then I saw how the White House was using the same language and example and so that explained a lot of it.
In other words, the libs are lying, while they do what they condemn, and there are no bullionaire conservatives bankrolling these protests? No surprise, liberals think everyone is at least as corrupt as them, though its ok for them. They don't get it – they think reasonable people must be like them, and confuse truth for lies, generally speaking
I read your post. You now essentially agree with the facts presented for a corporate sponsored mob though you attempt to spin it as if it's all the democrat's fault. That's a typical and expected reaction. What should be acknowledged at the start though is that what I said about republican corporate sponsored mobs is the truth.
"It's nothing I hadn't seen already, except the extensive amount of time she spent on FL 2000."
If interested, here is the 2000 astroturf riot connection with the health care ones of today (2:45).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32337799
Thanks to republicans paying their staffers to be fake protesters, conservatives inflicted W. on us. Thanks a lot :P
Thanks to republicans paying their staffers to be fake protesters, conservatives inflicted W. on us.
Do I have to link, again, the independent studies that found that even if the recounts were allowed to continue that according to the standards and request made by the Gore team, Bush would have still won? Protesters didn't give you Bush. The majority of voters in FL and other states gave you Bush.
You now essentially agree with the facts presented for a corporate sponsored mob though you attempt to spin it as if it's all the democrat's fault. That's a typical and expected reaction.
Um … no. I didn't blame it on anyone, especially not the Democrats. I said both sides astroturf and I provided proof. I also allowed that some protests may be encouraged, possibly even generated, by conservative lobbying groups.
I also demonstrated that the liberal blog that began the whole astroturfing meme, while being connected to the White House, was wrong from the start in claiming any national connections or influence for the memo that promoted. They also mislead by adding headers that were not there and by claiming the guy was promoting violence yet the only video of a protest were he was specifically at was very respectful.
You never refuted my statement that liberal groups bus in protesters as well. You never refuted my statement that liberal groups have the same "shady, nefarious" connections inside Washington that Maddow pointed out about that group of people in one photo.
If I just watched Maddow and got my info only from there I would be less convinced of GOP astroturfing. She posted one photo that included Republican staffers and then found two that worked at some point for a company that funds a conservative advocacy group that supports the health care protests. That just seems like an awful big stretch and a GIGANTIC brush to sweep aside the sentiments of every person that turned out to town hall meetings based on those thin strings.
I could make similar "connections" to her and crazy liberal stuff. She was hired at Air America, funded by George Soros, who funds numerous liberal groups and protests. She's an astroturfer! She's an astroturfer!
Now obviously I don't believe that. I believe she is genuine about her positions. I just wish both you and her would afford that same courtesy to others – to allow that people can disagree with you on policy issues because of honest principles, while still caring about people and not being bought off.
Care to allow for that?
What should be acknowledged at the start though is that what I said about republican corporate sponsored mobs is the truth.
That they exist or have existed or that everyone involved in the current protests are that – because those are two very different questions that you seem content to confuse.
But again, even if I allow you every point you've made and say every protest was coordinated by national conservative organizations with connections to the Republican party, would that make the protests automatically wrong?
Because, again if it does, where were you in attacking liberal anti-war and pro-illegal immigration protests? If you can demonstrate a consistent position on the issue and condemn the actions among those that agree with you politically then I'll be much more inclined to believe your claims and believe that you actually want a real discussion of the issues.
If you can't demonstrate an ability to or a pattern of condemning the same actions on both sides, then you are merely (to steal your words) cherry picking to suite your ideology.
"I also allowed that some protests may be encouraged, possibly even generated, by conservative lobbying groups."
Then we don't have a disagreement. That was my point above. You wanted facts to support it, I provided them, you allowed for it.
Then we don't have a disagreement. That was my point above. You wanted facts to support it, I provided them, you allowed for it.
I hate to end the spirit of agreement, because we still do kind of have a disagreement. I said I never doubted that conservative lobbying groups were encouraging even possibly generating some of the protests. That does not equal "outright lying and corporate sponsored mob."
I would also like for you to demonstrate a consistent principle of objection you have to these types of activities by 1)allowing that liberal groups and Democrats have and are engaging in the same practices and 2)state that you disagree with those tactics even when they are used for your political benefit.
I have no problem with conservative organizations or liberal organizations working together to sponsor events. You obviously have a problem with conservatives doing this, do you have the same problem with liberals?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl91YF1d3Kg
Aaron: That does not equal "outright lying and corporate sponsored mob."
[rolls eyes] Stop wasting my time, Aaron. This conversation is over.
I've watched the video, it doesn't equal that. I'm working on a post for tomorrow that should demonstrate why I don't think Maddow wants to apply the same standards she is applying here across the board (and honestly why she hasn't applied the same standard across the board and in the past).
[rolls eyes] Stop wasting my time, Aaron. This conversation is over.
Which translated means, you can't demonstrate a consistent opposition to the tactic because you only suddenly found it objectionable when Maddow reported that Republicans were doing it.
I'm not sure if you were unaware of the practice among liberals. Maybe you didn't know Axelrod was called the "gold standard" in astroturfing.
I'm not sure, but apparently you are not willing to do what I have done and either criticize both sides for the same tactic or allow it as a fact of life that both sides do it and try not to let that eliminate from my mind the fact that many people do spontaneously rise up to protest the government, both liberal and conservatives.
If you want the conversation to be over that's fine, I'll simply take that as your unwillingness to recognize an inconsistency on the issue. If you have been and are willing to continue to be consistent, I apologize and would appreciate it if you corrected my opinion.
“I’ll simply take that as your unwillingness to recognize an inconsistency on the issue.”
Whatever. I really don’t have time for this meaningless back and forth.
At least Cineaste is being consistent in his inability to hold a consistent position.
He doesn’t appear to understand his inconsistency using only his own logic in the discussion on abortion:
http://www.wholereason.com/2009/07/is-memory-a-characteristic-of-personhood.html#comments
/shrug Sometimes you just can’t make the horse drink.
Whatever. I really don't have time for this meaningless back and forth.
Funny how that happens. ;)
Actually, I do hope everything is going ok in your life outside of here. Sometimes, it is easy to forget that the people with whom we have limited interaction with her have real lives with real problems that consume their time.
Sounds bad, but I hope you just don't want to explain your inconsistency instead of actually having some real life problems. I hope everything is well with you.
I'm not being inconsistent because I haven't done anything but link to a video. That's all I had time to do. Honestly, I didn't even have time to read all of your recent posts though I do read your topics and as many of your comments as I can. I skip Seeker's outright. Seeker gets off on provoking people and talking to him is a waste of time. Your inconsistent accusation feels like you are fishing for a response as well so I won't respond to it. You do sometimes post things that are interesting to me and I'll offer comment when I can. Unfortunately, the days of me going through posts line by line are gone. There is a reason that I didn't comment on your blog for two months. As for James, you might want to let him know that I'm more than capable of defending my views if I so choose. I've done so for what, more than 3 years now? I just thought his pro-life arguments were laughable, "Do you think we should abort pubescent teens?" LOL!
Anyway, did you know that when I first goggled my way to two or three I considered myself an agnostic? The discussions here changed that. Here is my first, I think, comment…
http://www.wholereason.com/2006/04/tiktaalik_evolu…
Ah, those were the days. :)
Honestly, as I said, I hope everything is going well in your life – not your commenting life – but your real life.
"Do you think we should abort teens?" was a question. Not an argument. See the "?" symbol at the end?
Laughable? I saw you laughing, but I also saw you conflating, avoiding, redirecting, and doing anything but answering direct and simple questions.
In the end, I asked you for consistency in relation to you own silly argument, comparing the ending of a life with the age of consent for sex, which even that you were unable to supply. I can understand that you have a dogmatically held position on abortion, and I can easily imagine that it will always be so as long as you refuse to ignore the substantive issues.
I suppose I should have guessed that you were reading every other line, or something, since you say you're not reading every line. :p
I likewise hope you are well.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
As long as you don't mind being called inconsistent and without principle, sure consistency is foolish.
I wonder if Emerson thought consistently following transcendentalism was foolish and representative of "small minds."
Thanks for proving my point Louis…
Unless you had something substantive to add? :D